Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional preservation coalition hears concerns over demolition, calls for CPA funding and more training
Summary
At a virtual EMHCC listening session hosted by MAPC and partners, historic commissioners across the MAPC region said demolition pressure, inconsistent demo-delay ordinances, and limited public and commissioner education are top priorities; participants also urged greater use of the Community Preservation Act and more archaeological support.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council and its partners convened a virtual Eastern Massachusetts Historical Commission Coalition listening session to gather what local historic commissioners and volunteers described as pressing needs: clearer demolition-delay practices, more training and public education, and better use of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to support preservation work.
MAPC’s chief of planning and director of land use, Josh Fiala, opened the session by describing MAPC’s role in the region and framing preservation as an approach that should ‘‘tell the full story, center people and embrace change.’’ Fiala said federal support for preservation ‘‘seems and becomes increasingly destabilized,’’ and urged regional coordination to compensate for that instability.
Organizers framed the meeting as a listening session and used polls and breakout rooms to surface practical needs. Poll results shared during the session indicated a majority of commissions regularly conduct research and coordinate with historical societies, while fewer regularly develop or distribute educational materials or hold real or personal property.
Facilitators reporting back from the breakout rooms said several themes recurred across groups. Jeff, reporting for one breakout, said participants wanted clearer guidance so commissioners understand ‘‘the power that they have’’ and how to use it. Michael summarized repeated concerns about demolition pressure: many towns have demolition-delay ordinances but participants reported those delays often ‘‘slow down but [are] not effective in preventing demolitions’’ and vary widely by community.
Participants proposed concrete supports: model bylaws and guidance documents to reduce volunteer burden, sample procedures for demo-delay reviews, and a regional repository of educational materials for commissioners and the public. Several groups suggested using CPA funds more actively to finance preservation projects and consulting capacity.
Breakouts also raised two related technical needs: more access to archaeological expertise (including better coordination with state archaeologists) and clearer ways to align preservation priorities with planning initiatives, including questions about how recent policy changes such as the MBTA Act and the stretch energy code interact with local preservation goals.
Panels called for more convenings—both virtual and in-person—to allow candid discussion among commissioners outside local quorum constraints, and for EMHCC to help broker connections with legislators and agencies that can supply data on the economic value of historic properties and tourism.
Organizers closed the session saying they will use the input to plan future EMHCC meetings and to assemble resources requested by participants. No formal votes or policy decisions were taken during the listening session.
